But in spite of this overwhelming evidence, a controversy continues to rage over the actual particle pickup effectiveness of modern day sweepers and whether that effectiveness translates into a real reduction in the mass of pollutants being washed from urban streets and transported downstream by stormwater and entering receiving waters (Sutherland 2009a). Even though a street may look clean after being swept, there still may be a significant loading depending on the sweeper model used and the operational characteristics employed by the driver. 2002 and PWR 2004) have constantly shown that up to 50% of heavy metals and other pollutants of great concern like nutrients and toxics are attached to street dirt particles too small for most mechanical brush sweepers currently being used to effectively remove. 1998 Sansalone and Tribouillard 1999 Hubbell, Roth, and Clark 2001 Tetra Tech 2001 Townsend et al. That is because study after study dating back to the 1970s (Sartor and Boyd 1972 Pitt and Amy 1973 Pitt 1979 Revitt and Ellis 1980 Biggins and Harrison 1980 Pitt and Sutherland 1982 Pitt and Shawley 1982 Pitt 1985 Pitt and McLean 19 Sansalone et al. Today however, this reason for sweeping is undergoing significant reappraisal. Conventional wisdom has always dictated that if a street looked clean, it was clean. Since its inception in the early 1900s, mechanized street sweeping has been used to remove what might be termed “cosmetic†or “political†debris from roadways and other paved surfaces. Thanks for reading the rules.Using street sweepers to improve water and air quality HSU RESEARCH IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMENTS MADE BY THIRD PARTY INDIVIDUALS ON THIS FORUM. Please be specific as to why action might be needed. Report Bad Posts: Once you register, click this icon to let Administrators know if they should review a post. You must vote for seven other people before you can vote for the same person twice. Otherwise, your shootout may be removed.Īdd to Reputation: Once you are a registered member, you can click this icon to add to the tally of other members' Rep Points. We need to know about shootouts before allowing them on the forum, so call us and talk to the director of Sales before posting. Shootouts: Shootouts are comparisons between products. No "Flaming": Spiteful talk and flaming wars will lead to "time-outs" for parties involved. Questions asked on the forum may not be answered by qualified professionals. Technical Support: The best way to get tech support for serious issues is to call or email us. This looks like severe 3rd harmonic distortion.įorum Rules The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated. Actually, it looks like the exercises we did in school where we built a square wave graphically by successively adding odd harmonics to the fundamental. The hole in the response is bad enough, but when I use a 100 Hz sine wave and look at it with the oscilloscope, it's almost a square wave. When I say "hole," I mean a drop of 18 dB moving from 113 Hz to 100 Hz. There's a big hole in the response at 100 Hz. I've tried combinations of sweep and pink noise, front speakers both small and large, subwoofer LP on and off.
It has oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer displays. TrueRTA will generate sine waves, pink noise, white noise, and a quick sweep. A Behringer ECM 8000 calibrated microphone/Shark DSP110 combination is connected to the microphone input of the laptop. The laptop headphone output is connected into the front audio ports on the Pioneer.
I have TrueRTA software loaded on my laptop. My system is a Ventriloquist with VTF-3R driven by the Pioneer VSX-D912.